>> ^messenger:

We don't hate rich people. We hate selfish profiteering rich people.
Or maybe that's too complicated for the average person. Yeah, let's just hate all rich people, including those who are paid well because they're really good at something they love, and have worked harder on than almost any of us have ever done on anything. Let's hate anybody who's wildly successful for any reason. Way to miss the point, idiot.


Physician, heal thyself.

>> ^vaire2ube:

You spelled Bigot wrong in the tags.
Ron Paul non-racist quotes appear about 2 min in and continues... and Cenk's issue? He purports that Ron Paul says we should have anarchy. What a wierd thing to say.
Really? A vietnam era Air Force flight surgeon, physician and statesmen just wants the system to fall down on us ... yea.
ok.
so why does he fight so hard to change things in a legitimate, lawful fashion? to trick you all?Keep talking but really... research


Did you even watch the video? Cenk says that Ron Paul is a black-and-white libertarian. He says that what Ron Paul wants is almost anarchy, and he's right. Libertarianism shares many of the same ideals as anarchism. Problem is that it just doesn't work in the real world, where most people understand that we are constantly faced with "lesser of two evils" decisions, and that one cannot blithely apply a simple good/bad proposition to everything.

As for your videos, the first one is Ron Paul claiming he is electable and can win the 08 GOP nomination. I think he's pretty self-evidently wrong on that one. I would be willing to bet good money that he won't win this time either.

You spelled Bigot wrong in the tags.

Ron Paul non-racist quotes appear about 2 min in and continues... and Cenk's issue? He purports that Ron Paul says we should have anarchy. What a wierd thing to say.

Really? A vietnam era Air Force flight surgeon, physician and statesmen just wants the system to fall down on us ... yea.

ok.

so why does he fight so hard to change things in a legitimate, lawful fashion? to trick you all?





Keep talking but really... research

>> ^vaire2ube:

Dr. Paul has the brains and dedication to become a physician, and the drive to become a statesmen.


He has the brains to become a physician, and the intelectual dishonesty to refuse evolution as scientific fact. I wouldn't let a doctor like that prescribe me aspirins.

Sure. There were multiple copies, or Dr. Paul was shown some and not others and every other one was a fuck up... and no one complained to the right people at the time to reach Dr. Paul directly about the issue, in time for him to do something... except when he does find out, he does the incredible thing of ACTUALLY taking responsibility for NOT KNOWING and saying he should have. Wow, that must mean he can't make decisions, because information was actively held from him.

Dr. Paul has the brains and dedication to become a physician, and the drive to become a statesmen.

Somewhere in all that, he didnt have time to personally prevent everyone in the world from trying to smear him or take actions that would impact him negatively. Maybe he was really busy, in a way that most politicians are NOT. How would we even know what kind of schedule he had to maintain?.

Someone did it in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over, even in the face of other reasonable facts. keep looking.

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" Please. It is VERY unlikely.




Considering some of his statements about health insurance? Yes. I totally do believe he would say something that stupid, because he is a fucking turd.

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

-------------------------------

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

------------------------------------------------------

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

---------------------------

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

-----------------

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

>> ^bamdrew:

Stomach stapling and other medical interventions are intended to get someone to a state where they can then comfortably exercise, prepare their own (healthier) meals, and otherwise change unhealthy habits that are keeping them inactive and shortening their lives.
The safest action would be to consult two physicians (or more), and discuss whether medical aids are an appropriate first step for you.
I have an Aunt who had her stomach stapled (~300 lbs at 5'4", now down to ~200 lbs), and her improving health has definitely helped her and her immediate family in many ways well beyond simply her appearance.

>> ^EMPIRE:
If something like this was absolutely safe, I would absolutely use it.



I'm not morbidly obese. I'm just lazy and a bit overweight lol

Stomach stapling and other medical interventions are intended to get someone to a state where they can then comfortably exercise, prepare their own (healthier) meals, and otherwise change unhealthy habits that are keeping them inactive and shortening their lives.

The safest action would be to consult two physicians (or more), and discuss whether medical aids are an appropriate first step for you.

I have an Aunt who had her stomach stapled (~300 lbs at 5'4", now down to ~200 lbs), and her improving health has definitely helped her and her immediate family in many ways well beyond simply her appearance.


>> ^EMPIRE:

If something like this was absolutely safe, I would absolutely use it.

I retract one statement about physicians I work with "no medical decisions are based on anything other than what is in the best medical interest of the patient." Not true. The great majority of the time it's not too little care, but too much care. Judgment is lacking on when to withhold, or stop, heroic measures. It's often from pressure from family members, fear of lawsuits, or just guilt should they not to "everything possible." Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should."

In my particular specialty, I have no choice but to be my brother's keeper, which is as it should be. I treat with the same diligence the drug dealer shot by the police or the 5 year old child bitten by the family pet. Every physician I work with does the same. No medical decisions are based on anything other than what is in the best medical interest of the patient. My comments on personal responsibility are made from the perspective of my being a tax-paying citizen of a country that struggles under the weight of a medical system that is a bloated bureaucracy servicing a population of consumers with unrealistic expectations.
I totally agree with your comments on addiction. It's poorly understood and hard to treat. If we had a therapy that was effective, I'd be all for paying for it. But we don't. Psychological counseling is of little benefit. A person doesn't stop smoking, or lose weight, until they are ready. Too often it's because they have a debilitating disease caused by same. I have a few friends that smoke. I've tried to get them to quit. I've described the slow death of emphysema, the air hunger, feeling like you're running a race that never ends, although it does when you die. There's not many worse ways to go. But their response is the same, "I'm not ready to quit." Too bad.
One of the great misconceptions US citizens have, is the criticism that physicians are "controlled" or "puppets" of the system, that they receive kickbacks for referrals, etc. These people have never had experience trying to manage physicians, that's for sure. There's not a more fiercely independent group in any work force. They HATE being told what to do and they are the most ethical group of professionals I've ever encountered.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:
@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.



well, one really lacking area is in somatic complaints, which make up, i believe, the close to the majority of complaints at hospitals. things like - bad back, bad shoulder...etc. these are all complaints that often have chronic structural issues, for which western medicine is ill-equipped to deal. they often just medicate those issues until they turn into procedural issues, which is often a very incomplete treatment.
instead structural issues are left to mostly the chiro's to muck about with, and while they get some of the theory right, their quick-fix practices are also often based on a profit motive, and rather incomplete.

Exactly what is preventive medicine? It's basically don't smoke, don't drink too much, eat right, exercise, and wear your seatbelt. Oh, and don't text while you drive. So, most of it is just personal responsibility. Then there are the screening tests, mammograms, PSAs.....most of which are being cut back because of lack of evidence they improve outcomes and because they probably lead to many unnecessary tests. Immunizations are a great example of preventive medicine that works.
The Emergency treatment and active Labor Act of 1986 was an unfunded mandate that required hospitals to provide emergency services and obstetrical care to all patients presenting for emergent care, regardless of their ability to pay or citizenship. So, nobody is denied emergent care in the US health-care system. Of course, the real problem is uninsured patients that have non-emergent health-care problems.
The complexities of the current US system will make it very difficult, if not impossible, to completely convert to a single payer, National Health Care Plan. Perhaps it may evolve as a parallel public system, similar to the VA system. Regardless, the major problems with the current system are not being addressed. The heroic measures to save a few elderly people, without realistic hope for recovery, are consuming resources that could be used to provide health-care for younger citizens with some hope for a good quality of life. The threat of lawsuits are resulting in physicians ordering tests and consultations that are unnecessary and may add up to a full 10% of all health-care costs.
One often overlooked result of a "for profit" system is the investment in medical technology. The US is by far the World's largest exporter of medical devices. We invented and manufactured the MRI and CT scanners, and much of the high tech devices that other countries use in their National Health Care Systems.
>> ^criticalthud:

@snoozedoctor
personal responsibility is not really the issue. actual access to healthcare is.
yeah, americans are fat, stupid, and lazy, and eat like shit, but the "for profit" status of western medicine and the insurance and pharma scams aren't really helping matters.
one of the big problems with a "for profit" system is that preventative medicine is not nearly as profitable as medicine that bills by procedures.

>> ^snoozedoctor:

Sorry about your plight. Long term disability is a rare thing after recovery from influenza. You obviously ran into some bad luck and I hope that turns around for you. Actually, I don't think advocating personal responsibility is an interesting or unique position for a physician in the least. Promoting health and prevention of disease is part of our oath. With 1 out of 5 Americans still smoking and 1 out of 3 obese, we are clearly losing the battle. Sorry, but it's not my responsibility to hide the Twinkies, or the Camels and drag people to the gym. If citizens want better health outcomes from their health-care system, they should do their part. The quality of what comes out is only as good as what comes in.

>> ^kceaton1:
Yep I got hit with the same thing, the one-two punch. My side, it was sickness (swine flu, no joke), ending with long-term disability (plus surgery). That cost me my 40-50k job, but luckily I have parents that are helping me try to see through this. Otherwise, I would be a bankrupt statistic and most likely dead.
BTW, @snoozedoctor I understand your beef with "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN HEALTH", but that is a very interesting position to hold especially concerning what your oath has to say about that. I assume you're a professional in your field; perhaps you should take up that stance with doctors concerning those fields and see what you could flesh out other than: "throw'em under the bus".



Would you argue that regular check ups should be apart of your healthy life style? Perhaps a cholesterol check, yearly blood test for organ function and such?

My last blood work before insurance was over 300 dollars. Flu shot was 60 bucks at the doctor's office. Yes, people who don't insurance don't pay what they bill insurance at. Hell most of the time, the people providing these services don't know what they cost.

Now if a simple flu shot costs 60 bucks at the doctor's office, while Im there getting a check up no less. But costs 10 dollars at the drug store.......where's the disconnect?

As for exercising, Im frankly frightened that I might get hurt and it cost me more than a make in a year to get it fixed. Not to mention how long that recovery time would be and losing my job during that. At least doing stuff on the job and getting hurt means you have worker's compensation and you might be able to convince them to hold your job until you recover. But if you break your leg or pull loose a tendon while exercising you have only what you can afford to pay for. Which you don't know what it will cost until after they are done, insurance or not.

I suspect in other countries where healthcare is universal, people don't have to worry about this and they can push themselves a little. And it's in the countries best interest to make sure people exercise properly, stretch, don't over do it etc. So they probably take more care to make sure people are properly instructed on how to go about it and what they can do as they age to change up the routine and still get the needed results. You know, without having to be a professional athlete or hire a personal trainer. It's all too easy for family docs to recommend you to specialists for every last concern you have, plus they get a nice little referral kick back. It's a nice system the US has.......or not.


US workers work more hours than most countries, spend more time on the road commuting and generally have less time to live a health life as well. It's a useful thing to big businesses requiring those long hours that they provide your healthcare, because it'd be a shame if you lost your job due to not working the outrageous hours and lost that healthcare. If you untied health care from employment, people'd see how truly expensive it is and they'd be more inclined to have it reigned in and made universal. The premiums on health insurance alone would cover all of your general yearly checkups and tests and probably most of another person's for single people.

Sorry about your plight. Long term disability is a rare thing after recovery from influenza. You obviously ran into some bad luck and I hope that turns around for you. Actually, I don't think advocating personal responsibility is an interesting or unique position for a physician in the least. Promoting health and prevention of disease is part of our oath. With 1 out of 5 Americans still smoking and 1 out of 3 obese, we are clearly losing the battle. Sorry, but it's not my responsibility to hide the Twinkies, or the Camels and drag people to the gym. If citizens want better health outcomes from their health-care system, they should do their part. The quality of what comes out is only as good as what comes in.



>> ^kceaton1:

Yep I got hit with the same thing, the one-two punch. My side, it was sickness (swine flu, no joke), ending with long-term disability (plus surgery). That cost me my 40-50k job, but luckily I have parents that are helping me try to see through this. Otherwise, I would be a bankrupt statistic and most likely dead.
BTW, @snoozedoctor I understand your beef with "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE'S OWN HEALTH", but that is a very interesting position to hold especially concerning what your oath has to say about that. I assume you're a professional in your field; perhaps you should take up that stance with doctors concerning those fields and see what you could flesh out other than: "throw'em under the bus".